"Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.

You don't get it, do you? Here's what's going to happen:

1. You and your ilk are going to up the derp to 11.2. Obama is going to say 'fine by me. No deal then' and go play golf.3. Jan 1 will happen. And he will get the revenue increases he wanted anyway.4. And YOU will get killed in the next election, not the Democrats.

Remember 1998? Remember how you were just sure your impeaching of Clinton was going to win you all the things? Remember how bad it backfired? Voters can be dumb, but they're not that dumb. They know who is at fault here, and they know what the country needs.

These next two years are going to be derpy, but beautiful. I love watching hated idiots commit suicide publicly. It brings a warm glow to my heart.

There's at least a Senator each from Indiana, Nevada, Missouri and Delaware who hope Republicans double down on their crazy and Tea Party primary out some Republicans willing to be rational and make the compromises one must in order to keep our system of government working.

This guys childhood idea is not the only thing childish about him. I expect at any moment for him to start throwing a temper tantrum.

The US system of government only works with compromise. What you end up with through that process is weeding out the extremist parts of any ideology and with something more reasonable, practical, and rational somewhere in the middle. Sure, it might not be the most efficient or effective outcome, but it also keeps us from swinging into something closer to One Pure Ideology or another. We are not a One Party State. No one gets everything they want. However, modern Republicans in their fantasy world they have constructed in their echo chamber think the US should be a One Party, far right wing, Republican State no matter how many elections they lose. They throw these childish fits of "our way or no way" and start putting pure ideology over facts, reason, logic, and the actual good of the country. It needs to stop, and it needs to stop now.

whistleridge:"Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.

You don't get it, do you? Here's what's going to happen:

1. You and your ilk are going to up the derp to 11.2. Obama is going to say 'fine by me. No deal then' and go play golf.3. Jan 1 will happen. And he will get the revenue increases he wanted anyway.4. And YOU will get killed in the next election, not the Democrats.

Remember 1998? Remember how you were just sure your impeaching of Clinton was going to win you all the things? Remember how bad it backfired? Voters can be dumb, but they're not that dumb. They know who is at fault here, and they know what the country needs.

These next two years are going to be derpy, but beautiful. I love watching hated idiots commit suicide publicly. It brings a warm glow to my heart.

WorldCitizen:GAT_00: The heart of conservative philosophy: obstruction and refusal to ever consider anything other than your own ideas.

This group is no longer conservative. They are reactionary.

it's interesting watching the various/sundry GOP factions try to assimilate the fact that not only did Obama get re-elected, but that he got re-elected with a clear mandate, as did the Democratic party as a whole. the Republicans firmly believed that THEY were the majority party, that THEIR vision was the true and correct one for the nation and that Obama and the Democrats were going to go down in flames. none of these guys believed they were going to lose. when they failed, it rocked their worlds in ways people not in the echo chamber can really appreciate.

i'm not convinced the Republicans have made up their minds as to the root cause(s) of their defeat. they're still in the 'shock and denial' phase...but as they come out of that, i'm expecting fear/anger and conspiracy to be the Weenerss followed by the elite inner circle sacrificing someone as a scapegoat. the real decisions about what's going to happen next for the GOP aren't going to be hammered out in the press, or via discussion with the rank and file. it'll be behind closed doors and a shadowy group of money men, evangelicals and party officials will come up with the next best plan for the GOP recovery.

we should have an early indication as to which direction the Republicans are going to go when they nominate their human sacrifice. it's gotta be someone believable and at least moderately well known. Romney, perhaps. or maybe one or two of their GOP pundits. Limbaugh is a good candidate, since he's costing them money rather than making it...but Beck or Hannity would do just as well. it's also possible they may blame Romney's campaign manager but that's somewhat risky, since he took his orders directly from Romney. my personal view is that the GOP elites will most likely blame one or two of their own pundits...but I could be wrong about that..

I really hope nothing gets done by 12/31. Let's all go off the cliff together. Then we will have a new congress sworn in 1/21. They will not be reading the farking constitution this time around. They will be falling all over themselves to get tax relief for middle class americans and the top tax rates will not even be on the table. They will be falling all over themselves to get medicare and SS cuts restored because the old white base that elects the dickbag house republicans are going to feel the pain. Being their old obstructionist selves is not going to work. They do not understand that they are in a position where tehy have to get something done. Doing nothing is only going to piss off the base and worse it's going to piss off the corporate and military contracting supporters. All the pressure will be on house republicans to get something to the senate that Harry Reid will actually bring to the floor.

It's going to be fun watching teabaggers realize they have zero bargaining power on this.

The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

1. You and your ilk are going to up the derp to 11.2. Obama is going to say 'fine by me. No deal then' and go play golf.3. Jan 1 will happen. And he will get the revenue increases he wanted anyway.4. And YOU will get killed in the next election, not the Democrats.

THIS...the GOP will have to explain to 98% of the country why they let their taxes go up in an effort to protect a tiny minority of people who have been doing just fine (or better) during the recession - whose taxes also went up.

"We were so committed to protecting the most privileged, that we preferred to stick it to everyone to make a point"

That's a hell of a campaign slogan for 2014 and beyond.

Telling Grover to fark off is by far the most sensible route. Then again, "sensible" and "Republican" aren't the best of friends.

IIRC, the endgame behind the whole "starve the beast and create a crisis" tactic is the eradication of Social Security and Medicare.

Those two programs have been a thorn in the side of ideological conservative because:

1. They are government programs designed solely to help the entire population2. They work3. They are well liked

The above facts demolish the core argument of conservatism, i.e., government doesn't work. It is no surprise that conservatives have been attempting to privatize both of them. Thankfully, those efforts have all failed thus far.

By refusing to be fiscally responsible via lowering taxes and increasing government spending, the GOP has helped to balloon the deficit and our national debt. They now have their crisis, but the population not only wants to preserve SS and Medicare, they understand that in addition to budget cuts, revenues need to be raised in order to not only prevent a default on our debt, but in order to also ensure the viability of our entitlement programs.

By agreeing to sequestration the GOP has now painted itself into a corner where taxes will go up no matter what happens. They cannot win politically on this one. Obama played the long game better and we are about to see six weeks worth of weeping, wailing, and gnashing of the teeth from the GOP.

No matter the outcome, the deficit will be reduced and the Republican Party won't be able to claim any credit for doing so.

I'm beyond saying "It's a shame that they aren't fiscally responsible" and I've moved into "I can't wait to see these ass-hats suffer the repurcusions of putting party and ideology over country for the last 30 years."

"For 20 years Democrats have tried over and over to trick Republicans into breaking the pledge. It hasn't happened. This isn't my first rodeo," Norquist told the Journal.

"we are going to win this fight" Norquist continued, "The Lord of Murder demands it. On a throne of Brass atop a mountain of skulls He watches our progress. Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows, he cares only that it should flow. Know also that our skulls too are welcome atop that mountain."

It's called "returning taxes to a normal and sustainable level". It's a good thing.

Anyone who is actually serious about the deficit will also acknowledge the only way to make a dent in it is to raise taxes. Cutting spending won't even touch it, unless you're talking about massive defense cuts.

Weaver95:yeah, but the GOP has to know something went wrong. it's the sort of thing they can't ignore no matter how much they try. they HAVE to accept Romney lost...which means someone has to be blamed for that loss.

Probably the saddest part of this statement is "that someone has to be blamed."I agree that this is exactly what the GOP will do. Blame someone.But most adults and many children learn very early in life, sometimes you have to blame yourself.Be responsible for your own bad choices.

If there is one thing which properly defines the GOP it is that they are unable to do this.

Mangoose:We should have a citizenship tier. So you can say I only want to pay 2% of taxes but then you'd only get some of the privileges of being an american. Or you could pay 40% of your taxes and get the full package. Healthcare, legal representation, free speech and a mint on your pillow delivered by supermodel. Also having a mint put on your pillow by a supermodel should be an inalienable right of the free peoples of the world.

Also the percentage paid for full citizenship should vary by bracket.

I think the GOP wants to flip that around - the 2% pay almost no taxes but get all the protections expressed in the bill of rights, while the rest of us get only the justice we can afford. so we get to choose between feeding our families and having 1st amendment rights. Or we could pick health care but no 4th amendment protections. i'm sure they'll hold a coupon day for the 2nd amendment tho.

How pleasant you liberals are when folks don't agree with you. farking hypocrites.

Disagreeing is fine. Being a petulant child in an adult's body who demands fealty and ideological purity from elected officials that are supposed to represent their constituents is something else entirely. A "pledge" that entirely eliminates any possibility of compromise whatsoever is not disagreeing, it is sitting in a corner holding your breath until you turn blue and it is exactly why the US credit rating was downgraded last year and why we are facing the fiscal cliff today. Grover Norquist is not pleasant in any sense, so why should anyone be pleasant to, or about, him?

Oh, and take a stroll through FreeRepublic once in a while before you go calling anyone a hypocrite about being a big 'ol meanie.

Okay, so let's see: the Republicans have three factions fighting amongst each other, two of which want the fascists/social conservatives to take the blame. Then we have assholes like Grover Norquist fighting to keep their own grip on power with their shiatty planning and lobbyist jobs, and the pundit class like Limbaugh that control the message trying to save their own ass.

We're in a Berlin Wall like situation here. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, and it's going to happen pretty soon. I don't see the Republicans making it to 2014 without some severe problems they don't have the maturity or intelligence to fix.

born_yesterday:I just can't understand how their leadership can be this bad.

John McCainSarah PalinMitt RomneyPaul Ryan

Those are the last four people they've put up for election... to run the highest office in the land. And you can't understand how their leadership can be that bad? Did you think those were good choices?

I'm not really slamming you really... but think about it. They thought those people were the best they had. They're pulling from an increasingly shallow pool with little hope of restocking the pond. The only young people becoming Republican are die-hard racists, bigots, and willfully ignorant. Doesn't bode well for them... at all.

I'll bet you $10: four years from now, the unemployment rate will be under 6%, the budget will be clearly on its way to being balanced, the overwhelming majority of the country will have at least some health insurance, and GOP candidates will be scrambling to claim what credit they can, just like they do with Clinton these days:

And just like THIS ^ ^ crap, they'll be full of it then, too.

So yes: schadenfreude ist die schonste freude. These next four years are going to be politically beautiful, and not nearly as economically harmful as the doomday brigade would have you believe.

Weaver95:Republicans are authoritarian. in authoritarian belief systems, if/when something goes wrong someone HAS to be at fault. .

I agree, though I'd like to clarify so that we don't get people saying "Well, I'm a republican but I'm not an authoritarian so everything you say is wrong". Authoritarians are almost always conservative, because it protects those that currently hold power. So authoritarians will tend to prefer the republican party.

But I don't think that blame is inherently authoritarian (though it will certainly correlate well). I think it is inherently conservative. For example, conspiracy nuts are typically anti-authoritarian yet see agency in everything (thus seeing conspiracy rather than natural convergence). Seeing agency in natural processes is one of the oldest ways of interpreting the world. Hurricane hits your village? Some rational agent must have caused it, and thus it must have been caused for some reason (sin, etc.). Drought destroys crops? Some rational agent must have caused it, etc. Person gets sick? Same thing.

It is from the most primitive inferences that we observe ourselves as rational agents and, by analogy, extend agency to everything else. This is an extremely hard habit to break.. even I will occasionally take out my frustration on the inanimate target of that frustration. It's ancient enough that it's partly hardwired in. I grew up in a protestant community where every minor inconvenience was part of Satan's evil plan.. where coincidences are not merely correlations that we notice, but divine providence.. and where enthusiasm is actually divine possession, so I'm somewhat familiar with the worldview. We barely understand ourselves, and thus many interpret themselves as being composed of numerous different agents. The further you go back in history, the more often these misconceptions appear (e.g. if you were an ancient greek, you would attribute new ideas to the muses.. you would attribute lust to eros, confusion to eris, fear to phobos, etc.). Though, now that I'm writing that example, I realize that fundamentalist Christians still do the exact same thing (just with fewer deities). And these weren't just poetic metaphors for emotions.. these personifications had actual worshipers that built actual temples. I say this because there's always someone who tries to claim that the Greeks didn't actually believe their religion (to explain why theirs is different).

Even the non-religious overwhelmingly tend to see agency, at least in human beings. Again, this is an easy thing to do. Unfortunately, it leads to situations where we, for example, focus on punishment for it's own sake (you know, because the person just deserves it), rather than punishment to prevent such things from happening again. I may seem a little extreme here in rejecting any kind of agency, but it seems clear that any explanation that denies the existence of some underlying mechanism cannot actually be an explanation. Humans are massively complex, but are not fundamentally different from, say, the hurricane that destroyed your village. Bad reasoning is used in both cases, though the mistakes are far more tenacious when we do not have as clear a picture of the mechanical workings.

what's really weird is that authoritarian Republicans believe this will somehow enhance 'freedom'.

Everyone believes in freedom for themselves. Thus, when they cry for freedom, they do it in earnest *. It's why the republicans were freaking out over denying the freedom of an employer to decide how their employees' compensation, in the form of health insurance, is spent.

* but with a whole bunch of asterisks and fine print that they don't ever mention until you ask further.

The Bush Tax Cuts for the rich were designed -- hell NAMED -- to boost employment and the economy.

THEY DID NOT F*CKING WORK!

We have a recent bipartisan report, that the GOP has SQUASHED, that found no relation between cutting taxes for the wealthy and boosting the economy.

IT DOES NOT F*CKING WORK, and if you continue to support this shiat, you are a F*CKING IDIOT.

If you are serious about reducing our debt, ABANDON THE GOP TODAY. No more excuses. No more brainwashing. If you are too ignorant to see this, you should cease being politically active for the good of the country.

whistleridge:"Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.

You don't get it, do you? Here's what's going to happen:

1. You and your ilk are going to up the derp to 11.2. Obama is going to say 'fine by me. No deal then' and go play golf.3. Jan 1 will happen. And he will get the revenue increases he wanted anyway.a. Congressional Dems will propose retroactive middle-class tax cuts after the Bush tax cuts expireb. Congressional Repubs will oppose these tax cuts, because they were the Dems' idea.4. And YOU will get killed in the next election, not the Democrats.

Remember 1998? Remember how you were just sure your impeaching of Clinton was going to win you all the things? Remember how bad it backfired? Voters can be dumb, but they're not that dumb. They know who is at fault here, and they know what the country needs.

These next two years are going to be derpy, but beautiful. I love watching hated idiots commit suicide publicly. It brings a warm glow to my heart.

jjorsett:DeaH: The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

And the Democrats holding out for those taxes are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized, even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the Republicans had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.

"Won't someone please take a moment to feel sorry for all the poor victimized billionaires?!"

I think you're right, dude. That sounds like a pretty good strategy for the Republicans. Much better than Romney's "I'm for the 100%" BS that nobody believed.

namatad:Weaver95: yeah, but the GOP has to know something went wrong. it's the sort of thing they can't ignore no matter how much they try. they HAVE to accept Romney lost...which means someone has to be blamed for that loss.

Probably the saddest part of this statement is "that someone has to be blamed."I agree that this is exactly what the GOP will do. Blame someone.But most adults and many children learn very early in life, sometimes you have to blame yourself.Be responsible for your own bad choices.

If there is one thing which properly defines the GOP it is that they are unable to do this.

Republicans are authoritarian. in authoritarian belief systems, if/when something goes wrong someone HAS to be at fault. you find out who's to blame and then you hurt them. the idea is that by hurting whomever is to blame that it will serve as an example to the others about the costs involved with failure. it motivates people to stay in line, work harder and not ask questions.

what's really weird is that authoritarian Republicans believe this will somehow enhance 'freedom'.

We should have a citizenship tier. So you can say I only want to pay 2% of taxes but then you'd only get some of the privileges of being an american. Or you could pay 40% of your taxes and get the full package. Healthcare, legal representation, free speech and a mint on your pillow delivered by supermodel. Also having a mint put on your pillow by a supermodel should be an inalienable right of the free peoples of the world.

madgonad:whistleridge: I'll bet you $10: four years from now, the unemployment rate will be under 6%, the budget will be clearly on its way to being balanced, the overwhelming majority of the country will have at least some health insurance, and GOP candidates will be scrambling to claim what credit they can, just like they do with Clinton these days:

I would take that action. The only thing that is likely to happen is the health insurance, because Obamacare isn't going to be repealed. People will probably be cool with it by then.

However, there is really never going to be a recovery that benefits all of society. The Dow will get ever higher, but we have clearly offshored our future. The only reason unemployment (U3) is under 8% now is because so many people have shifted up to U4,5, or 6. The problem is that we aren't creating wealth - we are borrowing it. The notion that a nation can exist almost solely as a service economy is just insanity. Farming, mining, and manufacturing are necessary to a healthy economy and the greedy 1% are enjoying the fatter margins provided by offshoring, but this undermines everything.

We are following the Brits into the chorus, I just hope our avarice won't take the world with us. Who knows who might get elected after the next recession?

If that was the case, U6 should be increasing, right?This page (among others) say that U6 is doing the opposite.

It is the mark of the modern "conservative" angry, misinformed idiot that they universally refer to anyone who disagrees with them as some form of the word "Liberal", without regard to the actual political position of the person to whom they refer.

There's no question though: in addition to tax and finance reform, we also need to make serious changes to how corporations and their executives interact with our society. The current system of 'base your whole operation overseas while claiming the legal protections of a US system you do everything possible not to pay into' can't continue.

i'm not sure if that's gonna ever get fixed but...my thoughts on that matter would be to start stripping intellectual property protection from the guys who move themselves outta the country while still claiming to be a US company. pay to play motherf*ckers.

The Troof hurts:How pleasant you liberals are when folks don't agree with you. farking hypocrites.

most people outside of the GOP don't like Grover Norquist very much. they see him as unrealistic at best or downright evil at worst. what's more, he really does seem to believe in his idiotic crusade. never mind how much damage it would do or the chaos it would cause...he's got his issue and he's not going to stop until everyone does what he wants.

whistleridge:I'll bet you $10: four years from now, the unemployment rate will be under 6%, the budget will be clearly on its way to being balanced, the overwhelming majority of the country will have at least some health insurance, and GOP candidates will be scrambling to claim what credit they can, just like they do with Clinton these days:

I would take that action. The only thing that is likely to happen is the health insurance, because Obamacare isn't going to be repealed. People will probably be cool with it by then.

However, there is really never going to be a recovery that benefits all of society. The Dow will get ever higher, but we have clearly offshored our future. The only reason unemployment (U3) is under 8% now is because so many people have shifted up to U4,5, or 6. The problem is that we aren't creating wealth - we are borrowing it. The notion that a nation can exist almost solely as a service economy is just insanity. Farming, mining, and manufacturing are necessary to a healthy economy and the greedy 1% are enjoying the fatter margins provided by offshoring, but this undermines everything.

We are following the Brits into the chorus, I just hope our avarice won't take the world with us. Who knows who might get elected after the next recession?

jaytkay:born_yesterday: I just can't understand how their leadership can be this bad.

They only keep their jobs as long as they please the most ignorant and spiteful portion of the US population.

They're beholden to the Jesus-Rode-a-Dinosaur-and-Keep-Government-Hands-Off-MY-Medicare crowd.

But I can remember when that was all bluster and bullshiat. I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bush pass a sweeping anti-abortion law during his first term? It immediately had no chance whatsoever, because they deliberately failed to account for situations of rape, or the life of the mother, and was quickly forgotten.

Now, they have candidates trying to cross that line. I think what I'm trying to say is that they are reaching a point of diminishing returns, but they have few if any in the party that have the strength or will to change directions. Their hope is that they can compensate for the loss of the "fiscally moderate independent" by bringing out more of the far right. But those people were already supporting the party as hard as they could.

What I don't understand is how they can keep trying to squeeze blood from that rock. The only explanation is that their money has become independent from the will of the voter, otherwise they would have seen what the rest of us saw on election day: a repudiation of their platform. The financial support they receive from the party bigwigs must outweigh that (ie, if I change the setting from "derp", I'll lose party support during re-election, so I'm going to take my chances).

Why is this piece of shiat who has never been elected to public office permitted to wield such power over duly elected Republican members of congress?

It's like they like being held captive. Stockholm Syndrome or something. Also a convenient premeditated absolution scheme:

"Sorry, my hands are tied: I can't be bothered to use my brain and be part of the national conversation about changing times and needs of the people who elected me; I signed a piece of paper several years ago."

Not only that, but he should be in federal PMITA prison for his Abramoff shenanigans at the very least.

"Give me Victory or Give me the Death of the Republic!" - Grover Norquist and the Tea Party, apparently

All Grover does is present republicans with a choice he knows they're too stupid and lazy to make. Run a campaign based on substance or bend to him and keep running on the thinnest hint of integrity and image alone. Everything else that makes that bet effective and moves the country to harming its citizens is the work of republicans according to their own designs. Yes, he's a vile, little turd who's greatest service to humanity could be being beaten to death with a hammer in a dark alley, but let's not credit him with more than deserves.

whistleridge:"Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.

You don't get it, do you? Here's what's going to happen:

1. You and your ilk are going to up the derp to 11.2. Obama is going to say 'fine by me. No deal then' and go play golf.3. Jan 1 will happen. And he will get the revenue increases he wanted anyway.4. And YOU will get killed in the next election, not the Democrats.

Remember 1998? Remember how you were just sure your impeaching of Clinton was going to win you all the things? Remember how bad it backfired? Voters can be dumb, but they're not that dumb. They know who is at fault here, and they know what the country needs.

These next two years are going to be derpy, but beautiful. I love watching hated idiots commit suicide publicly. It brings a warm glow to my heart.

The only other thing the Dems do is just introduce a real simple bill that extends just the middle class. Then they get a vote on it or force the Reps to filibuster it. In 2014 every single campaign ad references the Reps being obstructionist and raising taxes on the middle class. Then an ass kicking occurs in the midterm election.

The best thing for the Reps would be to support the middle class tax cuts and try to take at least 50% of the credit by calling them bipartisan tax cuts. Instead the Reps are being morons and dying on the beachhead for the rich.

/it isn't like old, rich, white folk are going to go out and vote Dem en masse right now, so the Reps might as well give Obama ~1.2 trillion or so in additional tax revenue and let it ride

jjorsett:Bush 1's "Read my lips, no new taxes" was thrown back in his face the instant he caved and agreed to raise taxes. The dems beat him with it at every opportunity in his reelection campaign. Any Republican thinking he can cut a deal with these people and not have it used against him is delusional and should be challenged in the primary because he's too damned naive to be a Senator.

Or a smart candidate could do what Reagan did: not make any stupid pledges that lock you in to a situation where you cannot compromise.

StreetlightInTheGhetto:Summoner101: The problem with this is that the GOP has a built in excuse for denying the pledge. All the candidate has to say is that due to voters ultimately choosing to elect people that would be open to raising taxes, they're changing their position to ultimately better represent the electorate. Boom, done.

Until the Norquist mafia stops being such a stupidly effective threat at usurping the incumbent during the primaries if they should DARE TO QUESTION his middle school idea... that ain't gonna happen.

Christ.

Daily Show video on the pledge.

Get primaried by a Tea Partier two years after compromising with Democrats when the Tea Partier will just lose or stay the course and lose to the Democrats yourself because you didn't compromise? I realize the odds are probably better without the primary, but it'd flip if the GOP did it en masses rather than one or two members at a time.

jjorsett:DeaH: The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

And the Democrats holding out for those taxes are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized, even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the Republicans had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.

Except even the rich get tax cuts from the Democrats plan, so that kind of kills your argument.

jjorsett:DeaH: The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

And the Democrats holding out for those taxes are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized, even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the Republicans had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.

Got any figures for how 'insignificant' that increased revenue would be? Because it would be interesting to compare the increased revenue from those tax increases to the savings from, say cutting funding for NPR and PBS. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the increased revenue will be FAR more than the savings from those things.

Weaver95:yeah, but the GOP has to know something went wrong. it's the sort of thing they can't ignore no matter how much they try. they HAVE to accept Romney lost...which means someone has to be blamed for that loss.

But they have already identified who is to blame for the loss. Democrats, the media, and those damned Presidential gifts.

jjorsett:No, YOU blithering farkwad, that's exactly what they want. Bush 1's "Read my lips, no new taxes" was thrown back in his face the instant he caved and agreed to raise taxes. The dems beat him with it at every opportunity in his reelection campaign. Any Republican thinking he can cut a deal with these people and not have it used against him is delusional and should be challenged in the primary because he's too damned naive to be a Senator.

The fact that the Republicans' idiocy has in fact placed them on the horns of a dilemma doesn't alter the fact that the left's primary goal is actually fixing our finances. And I don't say that because of their stated claims, I say that because of the inescapability of their math.

But if you're so defensive about the right, maybe you should think for a second: if doing what you've been doing causes your opponent to win and doing what he does causes him to win too...maybe you really suck at choosing what to do? Yeah, the Dems killed Bush when he hiked taxes, but is that the fault of the Dems for taking advantage of an opponent's tactical error, or is that his fault, for taking an untenable position in the first place? Because I would say it's #2 every time.

GAT_00:whistleridge: GAT_00: whistleridge: GAT_00:I think you're drawing far too fine of a line between Reagan and Metternich. Those two are very nearly the same, Reagan was trying to reinstall an old system. Just because he failed doesn't mean he wasn't a reactionary.

Reactionaries are merely a subset of conservatives.

I can see how you would say that. But I would argue that Reagan himself was relatively moderate - in fact, according to today's spectrum he would be solidly in the Democratic fold. It was the whole slew of people riding in on his coattails like William F. Buckley who were more conservative and even reactionary. Especially those who were basically trying to undo the Civil Rights Act, social security, and Johnson's Great Society. I would say Reagan didn't actually try to undo those things.

I hate to sound pedantic, but I think saying reactionaries are a subset of conservatives is like saying Nazis are a subset of socialists: yes, they look a lot alike on the surface, but the differences are real, substantive, and irreconcilable.

And you completely lost my attention with the Nazi/Socialist thing. Just because the word is in their name doesn't mean they are. See also the relationship between the words "People's," "Democratic," and "Republic" as compared with how free the country is. The more of those in the name, the closer it is to a dictatorship.

That was my point :p

Just because a lot of reactionaries call themselves conservatives and even think of themselves as conservatives doesn't mean they are conservatives. Obama's not a liberal. He's a center-right moderate. Norquist isn't a conservative. He's a piece of shiat racist reactionary. A conservative would someone more like Olympia Snowe.

The definition of a conservative is someone who refuses to change. Norquist is very much a conservative.

That's not exactly true. He would embrace change that would lower taxes to a lower amount, and he would support doing away with most, if not all, taxes. You see, he had a dream. As a young lad, he found a way to do what no other man or nation has ever been able to do: bring the United States to it's knees.

GAT_00:I think you're drawing far too fine of a line between Reagan and Metternich. Those two are very nearly the same, Reagan was trying to reinstall an old system. Just because he failed doesn't mean he wasn't a reactionary.

Reactionaries are merely a subset of conservatives.

I can see how you would say that. But I would argue that Reagan himself was relatively moderate - in fact, according to today's spectrum he would be solidly in the Democratic fold. It was the whole slew of people riding in on his coattails like William F. Buckley who were more conservative and even reactionary. Especially those who were basically trying to undo the Civil Rights Act, social security, and Johnson's Great Society. I would say Reagan didn't actually try to undo those things.

I hate to sound pedantic, but I think saying reactionaries are a subset of conservatives is like saying Nazis are a subset of socialists: yes, they look a lot alike on the surface, but the differences are real, substantive, and irreconcilable.

Lionel Mandrake:whistleridge: You don't get it, do you? Here's what's going to happen:

1. You and your ilk are going to up the derp to 11.2. Obama is going to say 'fine by me. No deal then' and go play golf.3. Jan 1 will happen. And he will get the revenue increases he wanted anyway.4. And YOU will get killed in the next election, not the Democrats.

THIS...the GOP will have to explain to 98% of the country why they let their taxes go up in an effort to protect a tiny minority of people who have been doing just fine (or better) during the recession - whose taxes also went up.

"We were so committed to protecting the most privileged, that we preferred to stick it to everyone to make a point"

That's a hell of a campaign slogan for 2014 and beyond.

Telling Grover to fark off is by far the most sensible route. Then again, "sensible" and "Republican" aren't the best of friends.

Yes, but Republican voters are very stupid, and will use any excuse to blame Obama that they hear.

GAT_00:WorldCitizen: GAT_00: Variants of the same thing. Conservatives are reactionary. It's inherent in the philosophy of never embracing the new and always pretending things used to be better. That's conservatism.

Not to be That Guy, but they're not the same thing. A conservative wants to keep things as they are, or at most change only slowly. A reactionary wants to actively undo what has been done, and revert to a previous order.

Lenin was a radical: he wanted to completely overthrow the system.FDR and Johnson were liberals: they wanted to greatly improve the system via progressive changes.Reagan and Thatcher were conservatives: they wanted to retard change, maintain the status quo, and remove the mechanisms for enabling the changes currently under way.Metternich was a reactionary: he threw out the whole French Revolution and put the ancien regime back in place, wholesale.

Benevolent Misanthrope: GAT_00: The heart of conservative philosophy: obstruction and refusal to ever consider anything other than your own ideas.

Sounds alot like religion, no?

Norquist has established a religion, and he's captivated as many fools. No reason that should be surprising, millions of fools go to church every week. That he captured supposedly intelligent conservatives and completely drained all the brainpower the right once had is more impressive. Admittedly the brainpower was never all that great to begin with, but still. After all, you don't need to be some kind of genius to say "Let's make everything smaller."

Agreed. Norquist is less about being conservative than he is about selling strict adherence to the doctrine that he's promoting. That's not policy, that's dogma.

WorldCitizen:GAT_00: The heart of conservative philosophy: obstruction and refusal to ever consider anything other than your own ideas.

This group is no longer conservative. They are reactionary.

Variants of the same thing. Conservatives are reactionary. It's inherent in the philosophy of never embracing the new and always pretending things used to be better. That's conservatism.

Benevolent Misanthrope:GAT_00: The heart of conservative philosophy: obstruction and refusal to ever consider anything other than your own ideas.

Sounds alot like religion, no?

Norquist has established a religion, and he's captivated as many fools. No reason that should be surprising, millions of fools go to church every week. That he captured supposedly intelligent conservatives and completely drained all the brainpower the right once had is more impressive. Admittedly the brainpower was never all that great to begin with, but still. After all, you don't need to be some kind of genius to say "Let's make everything smaller."

Weaver95:Mangoose: We should have a citizenship tier. So you can say I only want to pay 2% of taxes but then you'd only get some of the privileges of being an american. Or you could pay 40% of your taxes and get the full package. Healthcare, legal representation, free speech and a mint on your pillow delivered by supermodel. Also having a mint put on your pillow by a supermodel should be an inalienable right of the free peoples of the world.

Also the percentage paid for full citizenship should vary by bracket.

I think the GOP wants to flip that around - the 2% pay almost no taxes but get all the protections expressed in the bill of rights, while the rest of us get only the justice we can afford. so we get to choose between feeding our families and having 1st amendment rights. Or we could pick health care but no 4th amendment protections. i'm sure they'll hold a coupon day for the 2nd amendment tho.

The GOP absolutely wants to turn this around.

"If you don't pay taxes or are aren't a veteran, you don't get a vote" is a common conservative theme these days. But *I* say, "why stop there?" Why not go back to the Founders' original intent, and restrict the vote solely to white males who own land or have a certain net wealth? Then our country would surely be better run!

Oh, and don't worry...it wouldn't be racist. Each black person would get 3/5ths of a vote, that would be cast on their behalf by the nearest wealthy white person. Which they would probably be fine with anyway, since getting out of the ghetto to vote is such a hassle, and none of them have ID anyway, right?